There's a movie spoiler site called www.moviepooper.com that gives a different view of the characters.

Here's what it says

The gooood, nature-protecting, pixie-loving wizard Avatar (voice of Bob Holt) finally catches up with his eeeevil, technology-loving, machine-obsessed brother Blackwolf (voice of Steve Gravers), and shoots him dead with a pistol.

(Aside: a decade after seeing "Wizards," your editor still can't tell if this irony was the result of intent or ignorance on the part of director Ralph Bakshi. If it was intentional, then this is a brilliant bit of cinema that uses the tools of physical appearance and point-of-view characterization to trick us, the audience, into empathy with the cruel yet beautiful oppressors. He presents an Eloi-vs-Morlocks style conflict in which the "Eloi" are the actual cause of the "Morlocks'" suffering. If Mr. Bakshi wasn't fully aware of the statement he was making, then this is a rather pathetic movie, in which a particularly American style of imperialism is so prevalent and subtle that an example can be invisible to even its creator. Think about it, won't you?)

My...what an impressivelly big load of pretentious dingo's kidneys he has. Is there a quote from Bakshi on this point? Just wondering...

I really wanted to like this movie, and certainly several scenes (such as the justly mentioned young elf's first experience of the horrors of war, or the final battle, rotoscoping and all) were both impressive and emotionally stirring, and Weehawk was great...

...but overall, I didn't like it very much.

I think some of it is the humor. The concept of an evil wizard using Nazi propaganda films to inspire an army largely made up of the nonhuman and otherwise non-German-speakers has enough inherent crack (even while also being an anti-war movie) that very little should need to be added in order for the movie to be funny as well as dramatic and action-filled; instead, much of the comedy feels forced, and many scenes that were initially funny just play out too long. Granted, humor is a personal thing, but unfunny-to-you humor is never less than painful to sit through. And while I don't mind that the character designs shifted in response to the mood of the scene, many of the characters had main designs that were far too goofy for the moods of the scenes they were in, which kept breaking my immersion into the movie.

Also, I really didn't like Elinore. It should be refreshing to have a romantic heroine who's as ugly as she is, but given that she had just as many in-the-script episodes of poorly supported bad judgment as prettier token females, I reserve the right to dislike her as much as them. (Honestly, I thought Blackwolf's queen was the most interesting AND best-looking female in the show, and she kind of got forgotten as soon as her turn as romantic dea ex machina was done.)

And, while Susan Tyrell has a lovely and expressive narrative voice, and the line drawings were certainly pretty, far too much of the beginning of the movie was told rather than shown.

I mean, I'm not someone who requires high quality out of every movie I watch. (I love both The Lion in Winter and Red Sonja, for what it's worth. And the adventures of moose and squirrel, so it's not as if I need my animation to look good.) But I do like to be entertained, and for what it's worth, large chunks of Wizards didn't entertain me.

I love Wizards. It, like most movies has it's strengths and it's weaknesses. But for people who think RB is lazy, well they don't understand the real world. The reason he rotoscoped so much (aside from artistic montage) is simple: it's called "no budget". Yes, that's right. If he had his way he'd have 20 animators working day and night like Disney, but he don't. Also, I find it incredibly short sighted to say the film lacks originality. If you saw the film in 1977 you knew there was NOTHING like it out there. Art exists in a context and needs to be viewed accordingly, just like Da Vinci or Picasso. And as for the war, this film is much more a commentary on Viet Nam than it is about WWII. Yes, I love Vaughn Bode, but I don't consider the film a ripoff. It's inspired by him. There are so many films that are made today that suck so much more in terms of their predictability and their paper thin acting that I can't believe the same guy who dissed Wizards could like Transformers. I mean really? If special effects are your thing, then consider how revolutionary Wizards was in it's day. And BTW, the other three lights are just assassins. They're not important.

Rumor has it that Bakshi made this just to practice for making his animated "Lord of the RIngs", which was better than a lot of people give it credit for.

The movie was going to be called "Wizard's War" but George Lucas wanted it changed to avoid confusion with star wars which was coming out about the same time. (Then Lucas asked that "Revenge of Khan" be changed to "Wrath of Khan" because he was going to call the last star wars movie "Revenge of the jedi", then made it "return of the jedi. I hope someday lucas asks someone to chance the title of their movie and they say "XXXX you, XXXhole. Change the title of your movie!")

Now Bakshi is making a sequel, which will be one of the longest times between a movie and a sequel made by the same director.

Rumor has it that Bakshi made this just to practice for making his animated "Lord of the RIngs", which was better than a lot of people give it credit for.

The movie was going to be called "Wizard's War" but George Lucas wanted it changed to avoid confusion with star wars which was coming out about the same time. (Then Lucas asked that "Revenge of Khan" be changed to "Wrath of Khan" because he was going to call the last star wars movie "Revenge of the jedi", then made it "return of the jedi. I hope someday lucas asks someone to chance the title of their movie and they say "XXXX you, XXXhole. Change the title of your movie!")

Now Bakshi is making a sequel, which will be one of the longest times between a movie and a sequel made by the same director.

Well it's a jerk move, you have to admit Wrath of Khan has certain ring to it and is a better title. Also I'd honestly prefer to watch Star Trek 2 over any of the orignal SW movies.

I am a child of the '70s, didn't turn 10 years old until 1983, so I vaguely remember this movie from my early childhood. I remember Fritz, the Avatar guy though I didn't know his name until now, and the fairy girl with the big ta-tas. Plus my mommy and daddy quickly turning off the movie when the final battle scene got a little too bloody and gory for little old me and my fragile little mind. I don't remember if it was actually any good, but I do remember enjoying it as a wee lad. Thanks for jarring up the old nostalgia!

I hadn't seen this movie in years till it turned up on Fox Movie Channel recently. I grooved on the visuals but I probably would've enjoyed it more if I were watching it in a drive-in in 1977 after smoking a couple of phatties....